Scientific Method —

How sensitive is the climate to added CO2?

65 million years of Earth's history suggest we're in uncharted territory.

As recent events have shown, even the World Bank is trying to understand the trajectory of future climate changes. Although there are a number of ways of doing this, many organizations rely on a measure called the climate sensitivity. It's a bit rough, but it's simple: it provides a value for the temperature increase we'd expect given a doubling of CO2.

Currently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change places this value between 2 and 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. But a variety of studies have come up with measurements spread around that range, and nailing down the likely upper limit has been a challenge. Now, a large group of researchers has gone through millions of years of data on the Earth's past, incorporating information from a number of past studies. In the end, the group decided that the IPCC estimates are more or less on target.

Adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere doesn't drive temperatures in a linear manner. You can think of this in terms of the infrared photons they absorb: each one can only be absorbed once, and the more CO2 molecules you add, the more likely it is that an existing one would have absorbed that photon anyway. As a result, each doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations are expected to have roughly an equivalent impact.

What exactly is that impact? It's possible to calculate it from first principles. Put all the known forces and feedbacks into a climate model, double the CO2, and see what it produces after it reaches an equilibrium. That has been the method of choice for the IPCC, but the different climate models it uses produce a range of values, which is why its estimate runs from 2.1 to 4.4 K.

The alternative approach is to try to measure the climate sensitivity displayed by the planet during periods of major climate change in the past. Unfortunately, these estimates don't always agree with the IPCC's; even more unfortunately, they don't always agree with each other. Those disagreements are what prompted a large collaboration of researchers called the PALAEOSENS project to try to figure out what was going on.

Part of the problem with historic reconstructions is simply that we don't have all the data we'd like. Ice cores cover the last 800,000 years or so very well, and the gas bubbles trapped within provide a reasonable estimate of global atmospheric content. But they only capture the local temperatures well. And once you get beyond the ice cores, you have to rely on proxies for most of the data you want. Right now, we simply don't good proxies for some things, such as levels of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Another problem is that the Earth is a dynamic system. Some responses to rising temperatures are fairly rapid, such as the loss of snow cover (which has a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight back to space). Others are far more gradual. Oceans, for example, act as a giant heat sink that can slow down any warming for centuries. That makes nailing down the long-term equilibrium response very difficult. As the authors put it, "the timescales to reach this [climate] equilibrium are long, so... the forcing normally changes before equilibrium is reached."

Confusing matters even further, different papers have used subtly different methods of defining the climate sensitivity.

So, the team went back and reanalyzed a variety of existing studies using a single definition of climate sensitivity and separating rapid climate responses to changes in greenhouse gasses from the longer-term response needed for the climate to reach an equilibrium. The authors estimate that rapid responses account for about two-thirds of the total change in temperature and typically occur within 100 years.

With the reanalysis, a couple of things become clear. One is that the climate sensitivity varies over time. This was already known to a certain extent, in that the configuration of the continents can influence the climate independently of atmospheric and orbital influences. in this new analysis, the variability was also apparent in the ice cores, which cover only the last 800,000 years during which the continents were in roughly their current configuration. The changes are small—within about a half-Kelvin—but they indicate that the climate sensitivity is itself sensitive to the initial conditions on the planet.

Extending the analysis out to 65 million years, the authors calculate that there's about a 70 percent probability the IPCC has it right. More specifically, their 68 percent confidence range ran from 2.2 to 4.8 K; the 95 percent confidence interval was a bit broader, but it encompassed the IPCC's range.

More disturbingly, however, they calculate that we can go back to roughly when the dinosaurs died off and not see another period like the present: "Present-day atmospheric GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations and the radiative perturbation due to anthropogenic emissions increase much faster than observed for any natural process within the Cenozoic era." We really do seem to be into uncharted territory here.

OK, first of all... I think some of you really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I NEVER SAID I DENIED GLOBAL WARMING OR THAT HUMANS WERE THE CAUSE. JFC, stop putting words in my mouth. Some of you say I was making a straw man argument with my first point, then what about all of you who were using straw man arguments against me? Again, I never said I denied any fact about global warming. Hell, I AGREE with what most of you are trying to retort with, because you are trying to retort with something I never disagreed with in the first place.

Second, on the money in science point... Of course there is more money in other industries, but that's completely besides the point. Someone in climate in climate science wants to be in climate science, not another industry. That said, they are still going to want to make as much money as the can in climate science. Saying they could make more money by going into a different industry is... it's just f*cking stupid.

If everyone wanted to solely make the most money possible, then literally everyone would be in the highest grossing industry. There are only so many job openings in a certain industry. People have varied interests. Some people aren't smart enough for certain industries. There are just so many things wrong with that argument that it's hard to believe I even need to refute it.

Someone brought up that there is more money in denying global warming than supporting it. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, that would be a very valid counter-argument to mine. See that? I can agree with someone when they have arguments that make sense, so don't try to say I'm just here to disagree with everyone.

Also, all this arguing has brought up another reason people have to distrust climate science.

3) Climate scientists can be total d*cks.

I mean, holy sh*t people. I make what I would consider a pretty thought out argument on the OPINION that SOME PEOPLE ----MAY--- have on climate science and you are all on me like I'm some sort of retarded conspiracy nut living in a basement and getting spoon fed by orderlies. Why? Because of an OPINION. Makes sense.

Also, my post gets 14 downvotes, but someone replies saying that he thought I made a good argument and that guy's post gets 4 upvotes? WTFa;lkdfja?! How does that make any sense?

Me: "Hey, this is why some people might not trust climate science".Everyone else: "F*ck you, that's retarded."Other guy: "Now, I thought Sextron made a good point."Everyone else: "Yeah, that does make sense, other guy. Good thing you made that argument and not Sextron. That Sextron guy is crazy."Me: "..."

Lastly, here's a pro tip: You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Stop acting like a bunch of conceited *ssholes and you might have better luck convincing people that your arguments are valid.

Yes, I have exaggerated things in this post. Don't care. Bring the downvotes.

OK, first of all... I think some of you really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I NEVER SAID I DENIED GLOBAL WARMING OR THAT HUMANS WERE THE CAUSE. JFC, stop putting words in my mouth. Some of you say I was making a straw man argument with my first point, then what about all of you who were using straw man arguments against me? Again, I never said I denied any fact about global warming. Hell, I AGREE with what most of you are trying to retort with, because you are trying to retort with something I never disagreed with in the first place.

Second, on the money in science point... Of course there is more money in other industries, but that's completely besides the point. Someone in climate in climate science wants to be in climate science, not another industry. That said, they are still going to want to make as much money as the can in climate science. Saying they could make more money by going into a different industry is... it's just f*cking stupid.

If everyone wanted to solely make the most money possible, then literally everyone would be in the highest grossing industry. There are only so many job openings in a certain industry. People have varied interests. Some people aren't smart enough for certain industries. There are just so many things wrong with that argument that it's hard to believe I even need to refute it.

Someone brought up that there is more money in denying global warming than supporting it. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, that would be a very valid counter-argument to mine. See that? I can agree with someone when they have arguments that make sense, so don't try to say I'm just here to disagree with everyone.

Also, all this arguing has brought up another reason people have to distrust climate science.

3) Climate scientists can be total d*cks.

I mean, holy sh*t people. I make what I would consider a pretty thought out argument on the OPINION that SOME PEOPLE ----MAY--- have on climate science and you are all on me like I'm some sort of retarded conspiracy nut living in a basement and getting spoon fed by orderlies. Why? Because of an OPINION. Makes sense.

Also, my post gets 14 downvotes, but someone replies saying that he thought I made a good argument and that guy's post gets 4 upvotes? WTFa;lkdfja?! How does that make any sense?

Me: "Hey, this is why some people might not trust climate science".Everyone else: "F*ck you, that's retarded."Other guy: "Now, I thought Sextron made a good point."Everyone else: "Yeah, that does make sense, other guy. Good thing you made that argument and not Sextron. That Sextron guy is crazy."Me: "..."

Lastly, here's a pro tip: You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Stop acting like a bunch of conceited *ssholes and you might have better luck convincing people that your arguments are valid.

Yes, I have exaggerated things in this post. Don't care. Bring the downvotes.

Well, I don't think anyone here IS a climatologist (and few of us are really seriously scientists for that matter) so I'm not sure you should draw conclusions about the personality traits of climatologists from a thread on Ars Technica. Its mostly inhabited by IT professionals AFAIK, a particularly harsh audience world-renowned for its extremely opinionated culture.

That being said I have worked WITH scientists and FOR scientists, and was educated BY scientists. IMHO most scientists are not particularly concerned with money. Sure, they're going to take a better paying job ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, but you're suggesting that they build their careers around money considerations. You're suggesting that they decide their science based on money. I'm sorry, but I have never seen this AT ALL. Most scientists are motivated to work on what they find interesting and would at least secretly dream of being responsible for some revolution in their field. The more ambitious and talented ones generally are quite eager to produce new results and wouldn't hesitate to publish evidence contradictory to the 'established' science, especially in a field where there are plenty of unknowns such as climatology. The idea that EVERY GROUP of these scientists is somehow lured away into some fantastical 'liberal conspiracy' (run by whom, the Orbital Mind Control Lasers, or maybe its the Discordian Society, it sure as heck ain't the Gnomes of Zurich, those boys already own all the oil for sure) is just laughable on the face of it. Really, go hang out with scientists. Go get a Master's Degree or just work for some lab or something somewhere. I assure you, this fantasy will not survive more than 10 minutes of actual exposure to the real world.

I have no idea anything about you. I think some of the opinions you've voiced seem dubious to me. Honestly at this point in the thread I don't recall exactly what statements you made vs what some other posters made. Some of them were rather out there or were as usual the garden variety easily dismissed denier FUD, but overall no I don't think I'm talking to an idiot. I think the Internet is just like this. People aren't very diplomatic. People have also put up with a lot of crap on this subject and I think patience has worn very thin. I can only council more patience and a thick skin, and really consider ALL the evidence, its quality and source and meaning carefully. If you conclude differently than I do that's OK. I think I'm right of course, but if collective intelligence is worth anything at all then some disagreement has to potentially exist and be expected and everyone has to consider it in good faith.

OK, first of all... I think some of you really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I NEVER SAID I DENIED GLOBAL WARMING OR THAT HUMANS WERE THE CAUSE. JFC, stop putting words in my mouth. Some of you say I was making a straw man argument with my first point, then what about all of you who were using straw man arguments against me? Again, I never said I denied any fact about global warming. Hell, I AGREE with what most of you are trying to retort with, because you are trying to retort with something I never disagreed with in the first place.

Second, on the money in science point... Of course there is more money in other industries, but that's completely besides the point. Someone in climate in climate science wants to be in climate science, not another industry. That said, they are still going to want to make as much money as the can in climate science. Saying they could make more money by going into a different industry is... it's just f*cking stupid.

If everyone wanted to solely make the most money possible, then literally everyone would be in the highest grossing industry. There are only so many job openings in a certain industry. People have varied interests. Some people aren't smart enough for certain industries. There are just so many things wrong with that argument that it's hard to believe I even need to refute it.

Someone brought up that there is more money in denying global warming than supporting it. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, that would be a very valid counter-argument to mine. See that? I can agree with someone when they have arguments that make sense, so don't try to say I'm just here to disagree with everyone.

Also, all this arguing has brought up another reason people have to distrust climate science.

3) Climate scientists can be total d*cks.

I mean, holy sh*t people. I make what I would consider a pretty thought out argument on the OPINION that SOME PEOPLE ----MAY--- have on climate science and you are all on me like I'm some sort of retarded conspiracy nut living in a basement and getting spoon fed by orderlies. Why? Because of an OPINION. Makes sense.

Also, my post gets 14 downvotes, but someone replies saying that he thought I made a good argument and that guy's post gets 4 upvotes? WTFa;lkdfja?! How does that make any sense?

Me: "Hey, this is why some people might not trust climate science".Everyone else: "F*ck you, that's retarded."Other guy: "Now, I thought Sextron made a good point."Everyone else: "Yeah, that does make sense, other guy. Good thing you made that argument and not Sextron. That Sextron guy is crazy."Me: "..."

Lastly, here's a pro tip: You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Stop acting like a bunch of conceited *ssholes and you might have better luck convincing people that your arguments are valid.

Yes, I have exaggerated things in this post. Don't care. Bring the downvotes.

Well, I don't think anyone here IS a climatologist (and few of us are really seriously scientists for that matter) so I'm not sure you should draw conclusions about the personality traits of climatologists from a thread on Ars Technica. Its mostly inhabited by IT professionals AFAIK, a particularly harsh audience world-renowned for its extremely opinionated culture.

That being said I have worked WITH scientists and FOR scientists, and was educated BY scientists. IMHO most scientists are not particularly concerned with money. Sure, they're going to take a better paying job ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, but you're suggesting that they build their careers around money considerations. You're suggesting that they decide their science based on money. I'm sorry, but I have never seen this AT ALL. Most scientists are motivated to work on what they find interesting and would at least secretly dream of being responsible for some revolution in their field. The more ambitious and talented ones generally are quite eager to produce new results and wouldn't hesitate to publish evidence contradictory to the 'established' science, especially in a field where there are plenty of unknowns such as climatology. The idea that EVERY GROUP of these scientists is somehow lured away into some fantastical 'liberal conspiracy' (run by whom, the Orbital Mind Control Lasers, or maybe its the Discordian Society, it sure as heck ain't the Gnomes of Zurich, those boys already own all the oil for sure) is just laughable on the face of it. Really, go hang out with scientists. Go get a Master's Degree or just work for some lab or something somewhere. I assure you, this fantasy will not survive more than 10 minutes of actual exposure to the real world.

I have no idea anything about you. I think some of the opinions you've voiced seem dubious to me. Honestly at this point in the thread I don't recall exactly what statements you made vs what some other posters made. Some of them were rather out there or were as usual the garden variety easily dismissed denier FUD, but overall no I don't think I'm talking to an idiot. I think the Internet is just like this. People aren't very diplomatic. People have also put up with a lot of crap on this subject and I think patience has worn very thin. I can only council more patience and a thick skin, and really consider ALL the evidence, its quality and source and meaning carefully. If you conclude differently than I do that's OK. I think I'm right of course, but if collective intelligence is worth anything at all then some disagreement has to potentially exist and be expected and everyone has to consider it in good faith.

You were actually the only person to quote what I said and realize that I WAS going along with the scientific consensus, so kudos to you.

And I'm just saying people will try to maximize their earnings WITHIN their desired field. Also, I agree that the people who are truly passionate about what they do will simply want to produce good research and progress their field, but in my experiences, no matter what the subject matter, be in industry, science, business, or anything else, the people who are actually passionate about their job make up a rather small portion of the whole. The rest are mainly just trying to find a job the hate the least.

You were actually the only person to quote what I said and realize that I WAS going along with the scientific consensus, so kudos to you.

And I'm just saying people will try to maximize their earnings WITHIN their desired field. Also, I agree that the people who are truly passionate about what they do will simply want to produce good research and progress their field, but in my experiences, no matter what the subject matter, be in industry, science, business, or anything else, the people who are actually passionate about their job make up a rather small portion of the whole. The rest are mainly just trying to find a job the hate the least.

That said, we will probably just have to agree to disagree.

Also, I work in IT, so your assumption is probably correct.

Yeah, so do I, unsurprisingly

I am sure there ARE people in science who will be bent by the lure of funding. It is just hard to see where that funding would come from or why it would be directed at only people that take one side in a scientific debate if that side is in fact factually in error. Especially when large vested financial interests are on the other side. However, it isn't absurd to ask whether or not there's too much group think going on. Doubt always serves a purpose and it can be constructive, at least up to a point. I think some of the voices in the scientific community itself fall into that category. However I think outside forces like to spin that into a question about the science vs more of one about what conclusions we draw from it. It seems like the wider debate has become rather disfunctional.

Anyway, we'll see where things go from here. I think we're all in for some hard times, but nobody knows the details, that's for sure.

Honestly, I feel I am not out of line saying this, but this article literally proves we do not have enough historical climate data available to detail the cause of climate change.

So you think today's climate is only significantly affected by things that happen on a scale of greater than 65 million years?

Quote:

But we are an animal non the less, and there are far more variables to evaluate here than just CO2 emissions, as I'm hoping you all read the article before this comment, understand. Just because we are producing large amounts of CO2 emission, and of many other things, doesn't mean we are the driving factor in climate change today. For instance, the temperature of the sun has a far greater impact on are planet by variance of a degree than we have studied enough, as German scientists have pointed out some years ago.

Changes in solar irradiance do not track what's going on with the climate for about the last 30 years. Before 30 years ago it was a pretty good match. This could indicate that recently, other factors have become more important to the current climate system than changes in the sun. Indeed, this is what researchers are finding again and again. When you account for the contribution of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), it adds up. We cannot make sense of the temperature record if we ignore the well-known effect of GHGs, including anthropogenic CO2.

Quote:

... B, it is more important to realize what we can do if, said facts turn out to be true, and the climate changes in a dangerous manner, which isn't going to happen in our lifetimes ...

You're wrong. It's already changing in a dangerous manner, and it'll get worse within our lifetimes. Did you enjoy the severe weather events we've been having in the US lately? By mid-century, that could very well be the new normal. If you're not young enough for that to fall within your lifetime, it is almost certainly within the lifetime of your children.

Actually it hasn't affected the data at all, and your link doesn't support that claim in the least.

Quote:

... that yes we need better understanding of planetary climate change, but more importantly we need to know what can be done to keep us (humanity) safe from any dangers that we, undoubtedly, will put ourselves in.

We already know these things. We need to start cutting our carbon emissions or nothing else will matter. CO2 is the biggest control knob on the climate system. We've been dialing it up unabated for decades. We cannot avoid dialing back on it if we want to change the course we're on.

You make good points, and among some of your fallible arguments that you say with such certainty, I would counter them with more sources of data, but I just don't have the time and that's aside from the main point. First of all I hate to say it, but unless you think your going to live to be 300 y/o I doubt your going to see the ozone layer melt to these changes, and the globe to fall apart completely. Just because weather has been sporadic in the US doesn't mean it's not livable here(or in 300 years). Things are changing and again it's unclear to the exact degree's and exact causes to which there are many, and people seem to overlook. But your right, our children or at least children's children will be seeing the more destructive end of this if it continues.

This leads me to the only point I really want to make to you. If you honestly believe this statement

Quote:

We already know these things. We need to start cutting our carbon emissions or nothing else will matter. CO2 is the biggest control knob on the climate system. We've been dialing it up unabated for decades. We cannot avoid dialing back on it if we want to change the course we're on.

then I guess we are doomed, because I can grantee you! nothing will be done to avoid this in the amount of time we have to stop it and make the change today. Hence forth why a plan for after is probably our only hope in fixing this planet. And do realize that any statements for change here in the US won't even matter in the grand scheme of things, when you have China burning up more and more CO2 emissions ---> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_c ... -emissions even with us out of the picture, good luck getting us all on the same page and stopping this within the amount of time people are calling on that to happen.

Second, on the money in science point... Of course there is more money in other industries, but that's completely besides the point. Someone in climate in climate science wants to be in climate science, not another industry. That said, they are still going to want to make as much money as the can in climate science. Saying they could make more money by going into a different industry is... it's just f*cking stupid.

No it's not. You got something right here: people in climate science are there because they want to be in climate science. The reason for that is not money, though. Far from it, since climate science has never been a lucrative field (and is becoming less lucrative in real dollars all the time). The reason they go into climate science is because they want to understand the climate. They are so curious and attracted to the climate system that they've decided to spend their careers studying it. Just as some people are drawn to physics, chemistry, or oceanography. The kind of people who do that are not likely to be the kind of people that will dedicate their careers to putting out sham science forever just to draw a paycheck. They would rather be modestly paid and know the truth than be rich professional frauds. The subject is important to them on a personal level. Moreover, the process of science tends to weed out fraud or misconceptions by its nature. It's designed to cut through bullshit by having other experts go over everything you do and hash out problems as they crop up. You must become accustomed to considering and legitimately addressing insightful criticism, because that's the only way you're going to get published in a reputable journal. In science, a discrepancy isn't something to be ashamed of and hide, it's something to explore and understand because it represents a clash of current understanding and reality. Scientists are personally and professionally geared towards prioritizing reality over current thinking. Science only progresses by tearing down old, wrong ideas and showing how things really work. This also gets to the heart of something that was already said to you. Scientists have an incentive to prove that current thinking is wrong. Not just because it leads to new understanding, but because it leads to glory if they can pull it off. If you are the guy who proves that all the other experts has been wrong about global warming, you will have Nobel prizes and book deals and public honors and heaps of cash thrown at you. Being the iconoclast is what earns scientists personal glory and the chance for wealth, not going along with the majority as just another anonymous yea-sayer. You don't stand out by saying the same thing as everybody else. You don't attract extra bucks by simply confirming what everybody else already knows. But this only works if you really can show your work and make a convincing case.

I am not saying that science is full of saints. I am saying that it's far from the most conducive environment for massive fraud to thrive in, money or not. Because of the way science works and the way people working in it are passionate about understanding reality more than maintaining previous ideas, it's extremely unlikely that an entire field is full of "independent, self-interested parties" who will commit to lying about their findings forever just for the sake of drawing a check. Instead we'd expect such mercenary or self-deluded scientists to be in the minority for any given field.

Now as to whether there is more money to be made by being in line with the consensus versus proving it wrong, there's another thing to consider. Scientists do not get wealthy by doing research. In academia, researchers are not allowed to profit from grants beyond what they would have made teaching a class. It is used to replace the University's dollars on their paycheck, not supplement it. This helps prevent research fraud by taking away an obvious monetary incentive to churn out crap. It's also, obviously, cheaper for the Universities. Not exactly a hefty personal incentive for researchers to exaggerate climate change, is it? Trying to game the system by exaggerating the importance or strength of climate change are not likely to fly for those disbursing grants, either. Grand review panels deal with hype all the time. Grants are not predicated on getting a particular result, but answering questions. It would make no sense for something to try and pad out the case for a grant by going along with the mainstream and puffing it into a dire emergency if there's good reason to think that the mainstream is wrong. Demonstrating the latter would be more impressive than the former.

Quote:

Someone brought up that there is more money in denying global warming than supporting it. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, that would be a very valid counter-argument to mine. See that? I can agree with someone when they have arguments that make sense, so don't try to say I'm just here to disagree with everyone.

There is far more money to be made because denier spokespersons typically are not subjected to financial scrutiny, tend to receive generous monetary gifts and "compensation" from vested industries for attending talks or putting together propaganda, or for acting as talking heads for industry think-tanks and political debates. None of that has to go through grant review panels or University payroll systems.

Quote:

3) Climate scientists can be total d*cks.

I mean, holy sh*t people. I make what I would consider a pretty thought out argument on the OPINION that SOME PEOPLE ----MAY--- have on climate science and you are all on me like I'm some sort of retarded conspiracy nut living in a basement and getting spoon fed by orderlies. Why? Because of an OPINION. Makes sense.

Who's being the dick here? The people taking exception to your painting a whole field of science as being a hotbed of public distortion and potential fraud, or the person ignorantly painting a field of science as being a hotbed of public distortion and potential? You did not say "some people may think that these conditions are true," you said that these conditions are true and that's why some people doubt scientists. As to your new point 3, I'm sure it's fair to judge climate scientists by the actions of a few loudmouthed anonymous commentators (who may or may not be climate scientists) on the internet right? Certainly not a dick move.

You make good points, and among some of your fallible arguments that you say with such certainty, I would counter them with more sources of data, but I just don't have the time and that's aside from the main point. First of all I hate to say it, but unless you think your going to live to be 300 y/o I doubt your going to see the ozone layer melt to these changes, and the globe to fall apart completely.

Nobody is saying anything about the ozone layer or the globe falling apart. I don't know what you think is being said but it's not what's actually being said. You seem to be very confused.

Quote:

This leads me to the only point I really want to make to you. If you honestly believe this statement ... then I guess we are doomed, because I can grantee you! nothing will be done to avoid this in the amount of time we have to stop it and make the change today. Hence forth why a plan for after is probably our only hope in fixing this planet.

"Nothing" is not being done right now. Many countries and even groups of states within the US are taking steps to limit CO2 emissions, even if national policy is stuck in the current partisan quagmire.

Quote:

And do realize that any statements for change here in the US won't even matter in the grand scheme of things, when you have China burning up more and more CO2 emissions ---> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_c ... -emissions even with us out of the picture, good luck getting us all on the same page and stopping this within the amount of time people are calling on that to happen.

The idea that if China pollutes nothing the US does matters is false. We are very close to China in CO2 emissions. China has publicly said they won't take more serious action unless we take action too. It's stupid and wrong-headed to say that China has to act before we do. And if both China AND the US are emitting at almost the same rate, the problem will be worse than just China going forward at the same rate while the US cuts back. This is not a zero-sum game where anybody polluting at the end means everybody has lost. Lower emissions are lower emissions and reduce the severity of the problems going forward. How can anybody honestly believe that US+China is the exact same result as just China? It's the difference between running into a wall at 60 miles per hour and running into a wall at 30. You have a much better chance of making it out of the 30mph crash in one piece.

The idea that if China pollutes nothing the US does matters is false. We are very close to China in CO2 emissions. China has publicly said they won't take more serious action unless we take action too. It's stupid and wrong-headed to say that China has to act before we do. And if both China AND the US are emitting at almost the same rate, the problem will be worse than just China going forward at the same rate while the US cuts back. This is not a zero-sum game where anybody polluting at the end means everybody has lost. Lower emissions are lower emissions and reduce the severity of the problems going forward. How can anybody honestly believe that US+China is the exact same result as just China? It's the difference between running into a wall at 60 miles per hour and running into a wall at 30. You have a much better chance of making it out of the 30mph crash in one piece.

Exactly. Beyond this the Chinese have shown FAR more seriousness and interest in dealing with CO2 than the US has. Of course they look around and notice that we're highly wasteful with 6x the per-capita CO2 emission and have (with Europe) put MOST of the existing 120ppm of CO2 in the air. Obviously they aren't going to go and wreck their economy while WE sit back and laugh at them. This has to be ULTIMATELY a group effort, but clearly if the US isn't going to even seriously consider doing something then nobody else is either. Better that we go first and take some modest but serious steps in the right direction and invite the Chinese to follow. I think it is very hard to argue that they will refuse. They may want us to go forward ahead of them but honestly you cannot fault them for that, WE made most of the problem and even MOST of their emissions are just exported from the US with the factories and jobs.

The idea that if China pollutes nothing the US does matters is false. We are very close to China in CO2 emissions. China has publicly said they won't take more serious action unless we take action too. It's stupid and wrong-headed to say that China has to act before we do. And if both China AND the US are emitting at almost the same rate, the problem will be worse than just China going forward at the same rate while the US cuts back. This is not a zero-sum game where anybody polluting at the end means everybody has lost. Lower emissions are lower emissions and reduce the severity of the problems going forward. How can anybody honestly believe that US+China is the exact same result as just China? It's the difference between running into a wall at 60 miles per hour and running into a wall at 30. You have a much better chance of making it out of the 30mph crash in one piece.

Exactly. Beyond this the Chinese have shown FAR more seriousness and interest in dealing with CO2 than the US has. Of course they look around and notice that we're highly wasteful with 6x the per-capita CO2 emission and have (with Europe) put MOST of the existing 120ppm of CO2 in the air. Obviously they aren't going to go and wreck their economy while WE sit back and laugh at them. This has to be ULTIMATELY a group effort, but clearly if the US isn't going to even seriously consider doing something then nobody else is either. Better that we go first and take some modest but serious steps in the right direction and invite the Chinese to follow. I think it is very hard to argue that they will refuse. They may want us to go forward ahead of them but honestly you cannot fault them for that, WE made most of the problem and even MOST of their emissions are just exported from the US with the factories and jobs.

The other thing here is that, ultimately, most of the solutions are technology-based, and rely on products like PV cells, LED lighting, and so on. And if we choose to use those, China will develop the manufacturing capability to sell them to us. And, in the process, they'll develop the capacity to sell them to the whole rest of the planet, including themselves. And, if China is successful at doing all of this cheaply, you'll see global adoption of some of it. If China fails do do so, it probably won't be because nobody is buying it, it will be because some other country has found a way to make the tech even more cheaply.

It strikes me as more than a bit bizarre that so many of the people who claim to know the free market well enough that they can claim decarbonization will destroy it will turn around and act as if a global market doesn't exist.

The idea that if China pollutes nothing the US does matters is false. We are very close to China in CO2 emissions. China has publicly said they won't take more serious action unless we take action too. It's stupid and wrong-headed to say that China has to act before we do. And if both China AND the US are emitting at almost the same rate, the problem will be worse than just China going forward at the same rate while the US cuts back. This is not a zero-sum game where anybody polluting at the end means everybody has lost. Lower emissions are lower emissions and reduce the severity of the problems going forward. How can anybody honestly believe that US+China is the exact same result as just China? It's the difference between running into a wall at 60 miles per hour and running into a wall at 30. You have a much better chance of making it out of the 30mph crash in one piece.

Exactly. Beyond this the Chinese have shown FAR more seriousness and interest in dealing with CO2 than the US has. Of course they look around and notice that we're highly wasteful with 6x the per-capita CO2 emission and have (with Europe) put MOST of the existing 120ppm of CO2 in the air. Obviously they aren't going to go and wreck their economy while WE sit back and laugh at them. This has to be ULTIMATELY a group effort, but clearly if the US isn't going to even seriously consider doing something then nobody else is either. Better that we go first and take some modest but serious steps in the right direction and invite the Chinese to follow. I think it is very hard to argue that they will refuse. They may want us to go forward ahead of them but honestly you cannot fault them for that, WE made most of the problem and even MOST of their emissions are just exported from the US with the factories and jobs.

The other thing here is that, ultimately, most of the solutions are technology-based, and rely on products like PV cells, LED lighting, and so on. And if we choose to use those, China will develop the manufacturing capability to sell them to us. And, in the process, they'll develop the capacity to sell them to the whole rest of the planet, including themselves. And, if China is successful at doing all of this cheaply, you'll see global adoption of some of it. If China fails do do so, it probably won't be because nobody is buying it, it will be because some other country has found a way to make the tech even more cheaply.

It strikes me as more than a bit bizarre that so many of the people who claim to know the free market well enough that they can claim decarbonization will destroy it will turn around and act as if a global market doesn't exist.

The Chinese certainly are the reigning champions in the "optimize it down to the lowest possible cost" game these days. There are some issues with IP. I mean we DO have a huge lead in actual basic research and engineering novel products. If China will insure that we can make some revenue from licensing then that will go a good ways towards making the cooperation work better.

However, when we look at the total picture, MOST of what has to be done isn't producing a different sort of goods, it is increasing the efficiency of our buildings, changing our lifestyles, etc. You can't 'export' that. There are vast sums of money to be made and saved by making good sensible investments in upgrading existing buildings for instance. That is all work that will be done by local people in the US. Even if you don't consider AGW at all it is a good investment. Nothing stops us from mandating good residential building codes and improving the availability of financing for basic stuff like insulation, better water heaters, and improved windows. We can save HUGE amounts of both money and CO2 emissions. Nothing should be controversial about this, but oddly it is as if people in the US have just become totally apathetic, they don't even bother to do basic sensible things anymore.

The comments that scientists are somehow completely free of bias and all prevailing views are truth is nothing but religious faith. There is significant fraud in the sciences (and it is much easier to get published with BS in favor of the prevailing opinion than against - confirmation bias is a human trait) and not everyone who disagrees with the majority is openly mercenary 'i will sell BS for money' (shocking I know, but people have legitimate disagreements). Accusing anyone who does not spout the socially approved message as being a biased scam artist who is just publishing lies for money is appalling - this is why there is a problem in science. Were it to function as per the ideal, their submissions would be objectively evaluated with the same credulity as given to papers which support the reviewers position, but that is not what happens - what gets chosen for publication is what is more sensational and what agrees with the opinion of the reviewer (reproducing results is not sexy and does not tend to get grant funding or publication in high impact journals). That people are willing to instantly ascribe contradicting research to being fraud bought by evil interests just proves my point about serious bias influencing science.

People go along with the predominant way of thinking because that is what they are taught to think, because that is what their peers are reinforcing, because they want praise from peers and to be lauded as an expert in the field, as opposed to being dismissed as a quack, because they want that tenure position or to move to better schools. People want to be applauded - this is normal.It is much easier to just quiet that little bit of doubt in your head and be praised by your peers and invited to all the right symposiums, than it is to make yourself a pariah by asking questions. Nobody likes to be laughed at, and it takes a certain kind of courage to be laughed at and ostracized because you are only 90% certain that the prevailing view is correct and want to investigate the alternatives.

Bias is not always blatant or conscious. Most bias is unconscious, which is why it has to be strictly guarded against. History is replete with examples of medical procedures that were sacrosanct despite a few 'quacks' arguing against it, until a few decades later, the proof was so overwhelming that it had to be accepted. There are Nobel laureates who were finally recognized because they fought against the prevailing view for decades before being accepted (despite volumes of publications supporting the predominant view). There is a great example that is just sitting on the edge of my mind - I think from a guy who recently won the Nobel in either chemistry or physics in the last couple years because he doggedly stuck with a theory everyone laughed at him for, but sadly it is not coming.

Do not assuming that the predominant view is the unquestioned gospel only beset by corrupt agents operating against what they know to be the noble truth out of avarice, while those supporting the prevailing view as being paragons of virtue pure from any influence beyond divine truth.There are scam artists on both sides, there are honest people of good intentions on both sides.There are people of good intentions who knowingly exaggerate because they are passionate about the topic and want to get attention.And sometimes, even when the entire rest of the field says you are a quack, you are still right.

I was raised by lab mice, most of my friends are lab mice, I married a lab mouse (fortunately I somehow avoided becoming a lab mouse myself... unfortunately I turned into a datacenter imp instead).There is no shortage of high school level drama and favoritism in the sciences - it is not all pure academic objectivity.

The comments that scientists are somehow completely free of bias and all prevailing views are truth is nothing but religious faith.

No, actually it isn't religious faith. Faith is blind, it is DEFINITIONALLY irrelevant to faith if there is contrary evidence or not. History is by contrast replete with examples of science as a whole being substantially correct. Just flip a light switch if you need evidence. Moreover you are making an 'excluded middle' type of argument. You are insisting that because all scientists are not completely free of bias and all prevailing views are not universally true that THIS VIEW must be false, or perhaps even that ALL OF SCIENCE must be false. This is simply elementary logical fallacy.

Quote:

There is significant fraud in the sciences (and it is much easier to get published with BS in favor of the prevailing opinion than against - confirmation bias is a human trait) and not everyone who disagrees with the majority is openly mercenary 'i will sell BS for money' (shocking I know, but people have legitimate disagreements).

Please present documentary evidence of this significant fraud. Not some isolated instance of a single fraud, but documentary evidence of an ENTIRE BRANCH OF SCIENCE which is fraudulent on a massive scale such that 97% of its practitioners are corrupt. Heck, I'll lower the bar, show me documentary evidence of a branch of science where 10% of its practitioners are corrupt. Also documentary evidence that it is so hard to publish against the consensus view that science cannot proceed in an entire discipline and only false conclusions are ever published.

Quote:

Accusing anyone who does not spout the socially approved message as being a biased scam artist who is just publishing lies for money is appalling - this is why there is a problem in science.

Again, citations required, show us who, when, where any actual scientists who would for instance peer review work have ever made these kinds of statements against other qualified scientists.

Quote:

Were it to function as per the ideal, their submissions would be objectively evaluated with the same credulity as given to papers which support the reviewers position, but that is not what happens - what gets chosen for publication is what is more sensational and what agrees with the opinion of the reviewer (reproducing results is not sexy and does not tend to get grant funding or publication in high impact journals).

Again, citations are required. It is easy to toss out these unsubstantiated accusations. They are worthless unless you can put your money where your mouth is.

Quote:

That people are willing to instantly ascribe contradicting research to being fraud bought by evil interests just proves my point about serious bias influencing science.

Again, people who are not scientists and definitely not climate researchers spouting on boards like this one aside, where are these people who are qualified to judge contradicting research instantly ascribing it to fraud. Please provide quotes and links.

Quote:

People go along with the predominant way of thinking because that is what they are taught to think, because that is what their peers are reinforcing, because they want praise from peers and to be lauded as an expert in the field, as opposed to being dismissed as a quack, because they want that tenure position or to move to better schools. People want to be applauded - this is normal.

Right, typically the segment of the population who are drawn to cutting edge scientific research careers are just sheeple who want to go along with everyone else. They wouldn't dream of having their own opinions on anything. Have you ever met ANY scientists at all?

Quote:

It is much easier to just quiet that little bit of doubt in your head and be praised by your peers and invited to all the right symposiums, than it is to make yourself a pariah by asking questions. Nobody likes to be laughed at, and it takes a certain kind of courage to be laughed at and ostracized because you are only 90% certain that the prevailing view is correct and want to investigate the alternatives.

Bias is not always blatant or conscious. Most bias is unconscious, which is why it has to be strictly guarded against. History is replete with examples of medical procedures that were sacrosanct despite a few 'quacks' arguing against it, until a few decades later, the proof was so overwhelming that it had to be accepted. There are Nobel laureates who were finally recognized because they fought against the prevailing view for decades before being accepted (despite volumes of publications supporting the predominant view). There is a great example that is just sitting on the edge of my mind - I think from a guy who recently won the Nobel in either chemistry or physics in the last couple years because he doggedly stuck with a theory everyone laughed at him for, but sadly it is not coming.

Yes, there are narrow examples of specific cases where some specific conclusion was ridiculed etc. There are also plenty of cases where when people were totally ignorant of even the basics of a subject the prevailing view simply drew conclusions from gut instinct or preference and showed resistance to real evidence. Please show me an example of an entire branch of science in which a great deal of sophisticated research has been done in which the ENTIRE FIELD has completely deluded itself into misinterpreting this mass of evidence into its opposite conclusion. I'll save you the trouble, there is no such example. It would be utterly unprecedented.

Quote:

Do not assuming that the predominant view is the unquestioned gospel only beset by corrupt agents operating against what they know to be the noble truth out of avarice, while those supporting the prevailing view as being paragons of virtue pure from any influence beyond divine truth.There are scam artists on both sides, there are honest people of good intentions on both sides.There are people of good intentions who knowingly exaggerate because they are passionate about the topic and want to get attention.And sometimes, even when the entire rest of the field says you are a quack, you are still right.

Yes, on specific things this is true, but NEVER IN HISTORY has an entire branch of science, well founded on modern experiment and observation been proven entirely wrong. Never. In the VAST MAJORITY of cases it is very safe to say that the consensus view is largely correct. You need to question YOUR motives far more deeply than you need to question the motives of a large body of other people. Which is the more likely truth, that climatology is a totally deluded science that has sucked in 10,000 of our most brilliant minds and turned them to biased mush, or that you're just wrong?

Quote:

I was raised by lab mice, most of my friends are lab mice, I married a lab mouse (fortunately I somehow avoided becoming a lab mouse myself... unfortunately I turned into a datacenter imp instead).There is no shortage of high school level drama and favoritism in the sciences - it is not all pure academic objectivity.

So what? Science WORKS. It is of course perfectly true that some little result from some experiment can easily be bias, fraud, or error. You aren't accusing someone of conducting a bad experiment or being a bad scientist. You are accusing ALL OF SCIENCE of being balderdash. Sorry, but you're going to have to provide some evidence friend. Talk is cheap.

The comments that scientists are somehow completely free of bias and all prevailing views are truth is nothing but religious faith.

Which comments would those be?

You, Alhazred, and Titanium Dragon have all made comments to the effect that you believe that the current prevailing view must, buy the very nature of science, be free of bias, or that the prevailing thought must be unimpeachable.

While pure science, bereft of human motivation, is by its nature objective and free of bias, science is unfortunately conducted by humans. Humans who are ashamed and offended by others calling them wrong. Humans who are subtly steered toward veneration of their peers, rather than risk being sidelined and having their reputations maligned. Humans who are likely to conform to groupthink.

For every maverick who gains rewards for proving beyond doubt that they were right, there are scores who are sidelined and never given a chance to be heard. When this happens in chemistry it is appalling enough, but at least they have repeatable experiments - trying to go against prevailing wisdom in an unverifiable unreproducible field is a Sisyphean task, especially when there is such a strong political wind. Getting tenure is hard enough - you really don't want to have a politically unpopular view on record.

Even when I agree with the consensus I fervently reject the stance that anyone questioning it must be wrong, and reject denial that there are substantial problems in the standard models. Always ask yourself if you are not just thinking "sure the epicycles have a few problems, but obviously it must be correct, as we all agree - those heliocentric people are just quacks".

The comments that scientists are somehow completely free of bias and all prevailing views are truth is nothing but religious faith.

Which comments would those be?

You, Alhazred, and Titanium Dragon have all made comments to the effect that you believe that the current prevailing view must, buy the very nature of science, be free of bias, or that the prevailing thought must be unimpeachable.

While pure science, bereft of human motivation, is by its nature objective and free of bias, science is unfortunately conducted by humans. Humans who are ashamed and offended by others calling them wrong. Humans who are subtly steered toward veneration of their peers, rather than risk being sidelined and having their reputations maligned. Humans who are likely to conform to groupthink.

For every maverick who gains rewards for proving beyond doubt that they were right, there are scores who are sidelined and never given a chance to be heard. When this happens in chemistry it is appalling enough, but at least they have repeatable experiments - trying to go against prevailing wisdom in an unverifiable unreproducible field is a Sisyphean task, especially when there is such a strong political wind. Getting tenure is hard enough - you really don't want to have a politically unpopular view on record.

Even when I agree with the consensus I fervently reject the stance that anyone questioning it must be wrong, and reject denial that there are substantial problems in the standard models. Always ask yourself if you are not just thinking "sure the epicycles have a few problems, but obviously it must be correct, as we all agree - those heliocentric people are just quacks".

Have a little humility - scientists are all too human.

Before someone else links it to you, please read the relativity of wrong (don't worry, it's not very long) and consider whether it has relevance.

No, actually it isn't religious faith. Faith is blind, it is DEFINITIONALLY irrelevant to faith if there is contrary evidence or not. History is by contrast replete with examples of science as a whole being substantially correct. Just flip a light switch if you need evidence. Moreover you are making an 'excluded middle' type of argument. You are insisting that because all scientists are not completely free of bias and all prevailing views are not universally true that THIS VIEW must be false, or perhaps even that ALL OF SCIENCE must be false. This is simply elementary logical fallacy.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.I make a statement that people should entertain the idea that they may be mistaken, and the religious fervor comes out. Now I am accused of being a heretic who proclaims that all science is wrong!Please calm down and reread my post.

Do a quick google on fraudulent research published in academic journals - it will blow your mind.Free bit of advice to those who are academics here - don't try to rip off the work of an expert in the field and get it published under your own name. Earlier this year a hapless lab monkey had the misfortune of their fraudulent paper get sent for review to the guy whose work they were trying to rip off. Much hilarity ensued.

There are groups who are trying to get some grant money together to attempt to reproduce published work simply as a method of verifying the academic literature. Needless to say, they are finding it incredibly hard to get funding. Even if you manage to scrape together some funding, you will find it exceedingly hard to get published (when your public standing, not to mention your continued employment, rely upon getting published in high impact journals, devoting your time to checking other's work is not very appealing).

I would oblige with links to serious discussions in academic circles about the hazards of the current publishing regime (how sensational results get attention to the detriment of serious research, how there is a strong pressure to make statements far stronger than the data actually implies, and how easily groupthink can set in), but it is time for me to go.

Perhaps tomorrow I will give you a little insight into how there is a difference between how science works and how academic communities behave.

The comments that scientists are somehow completely free of bias and all prevailing views are truth is nothing but religious faith.

Which comments would those be?

You, Alhazred, and Titanium Dragon have all made comments to the effect that you believe that the current prevailing view must, buy the very nature of science, be free of bias, or that the prevailing thought must be unimpeachable.

I've never used the term "free of bias" nor implied it. There can be bias and you can still reach correct conclusions. In any case why should I assume the bias is in any one particular direction? Simply because that is convenient to your argument? I think not...

Again with the unimpeachable. "Prevailing thought" is irrelevant to anything. FACTS are pretty hard to impeach. I could care less what any of these scientists THINK, as in their personal opinions. What I care about is the cold hard evidence they have presented. Evidence which supports, and in fact is the CAUSE of the existence of, this 'prevailing thought'. You have things backwards see. The evidence caused the thought, not the other way around.

Quote:

While pure science, bereft of human motivation, is by its nature objective and free of bias, science is unfortunately conducted by humans. Humans who are ashamed and offended by others calling them wrong. Humans who are subtly steered toward veneration of their peers, rather than risk being sidelined and having their reputations maligned. Humans who are likely to conform to groupthink.

Right, and conveniently something you find to be unpalatable just happens to be the one case in human history where an entire branch of science, after billions of $ of research by 10k or more researches has deluded itself into being completely wrong in every respect. It is useless for you to protest the imperfection of humanity. You have a MUCH BIGGER problem, which is the facts. Until you address the facts it is largely immaterial who the people doing the science are. Only by resort to the most ridiculously extreme pleading are you able to even approach an assault on the facts, and you must prove your pleading before we will give you an inch.

Quote:

For every maverick who gains rewards for proving beyond doubt that they were right, there are scores who are sidelined and never given a chance to be heard. When this happens in chemistry it is appalling enough, but at least they have repeatable experiments - trying to go against prevailing wisdom in an unverifiable unreproducible field is a Sisyphean task, especially when there is such a strong political wind. Getting tenure is hard enough - you really don't want to have a politically unpopular view on record.

Yes, yes, and it just so happens that the entire science has mysteriously become deluded to such a degree that the only option for the poor hero who is right is to just throw up his hands in defeat. This is to say the least silly.

Quote:

Even when I agree with the consensus I fervently reject the stance that anyone questioning it must be wrong, and reject denial that there are substantial problems in the standard models. Always ask yourself if you are not just thinking "sure the epicycles have a few problems, but obviously it must be correct, as we all agree - those heliocentric people are just quacks".

Have a little humility - scientists are all too human.

I don't at all believe that anyone who is questioning it is wrong. Come to me with FACTS and not innuendos and opinions and FUD distributed by disgruntled malcontents. What you fail to realize is that the evidence that AGW is wrong is SIMPLY NOT CREDIBLE.

Lets imagine for a second 2 possible hypotheses and what you would expect to observe:

1) AGW is real - The bulk of scientists will accept this as the established facts on the ground, it will not be possible to find evidence contradictory to this credible enough to be published (because it will be factually incorrect) and in general the people accepting the truth will actually be vindicated again and again. Only a fringe group of people with either a vested interest in stirring up controversy or who are simply incapable of distinguishing the truth and feel uncomfortable with it will disagree. They will never be dismissed by any amount of facts.

2) AGW is false - The vast majority of scientist have inexplicably come to a wrong conclusion despite vast amounts of research and evidence. We would expect that in this case robust contrarian elements would exist, whole publications and university departments in which for whatever reason intellectually vigorous scientists (or just ones that randomly were biased in a different way) came to the correct conclusion. Because they ARE correct their research constantly upsets the false 'groupthink'. Said groupthink is thoroughly riddled with many mutually incompatible theories and predictions (since it is all just made up nothing constrains it to consistency). Meanwhile the unbiased people have a highly coherent and consistent set of data and theory, which at worst appears to be just one of the variations of groupthink, but will of course tend to win any actual comparison with falsely held beliefs.

Now, which of these 2 scenarios do you think is the one that actually describes the world we live in? Really, seriously, think about this long and hard and ask yourself some tough questions about what you see around you. Go read at least a good variety of the popular science literature on AGW and see just how large the amount of interlocking evidence gathered from multiple disparate lines of inquiry is. Just how diverse the community of people in the scientific community there are who hold essentially one pretty coherent overall hypothesis, and just how fragmentary and lacking in consistency or even basic evidence the contrary position is. Can you REALLY SERIOUSLY tell me that any unbiased person would study this evidence and come to the conclusion that AGW is false?

You are making a VERY extraordinary claim here. You need to back it up with some very solid concrete evidence, and I'm sorry, but I've looked hard and I've personally found that evidence entirely lacking. What else can I say? This is nothing personal. In my better judgment you are simply wrong.

The comments that scientists are somehow completely free of bias and all prevailing views are truth is nothing but religious faith. There is significant fraud in the sciences (and it is much easier to get published with BS in favor of the prevailing opinion than against - confirmation bias is a human trait) and not everyone who disagrees with the majority is openly mercenary 'i will sell BS for money' (shocking I know, but people have legitimate disagreements). Accusing anyone who does not spout the socially approved message as being a biased scam artist who is just publishing lies for money is appalling - this is why there is a problem in science. Were it to function as per the ideal, their submissions would be objectively evaluated with the same credulity as given to papers which support the reviewers position, but that is not what happens - what gets chosen for publication is what is more sensational and what agrees with the opinion of the reviewer (reproducing results is not sexy and does not tend to get grant funding or publication in high impact journals). That people are willing to instantly ascribe contradicting research to being fraud bought by evil interests just proves my point about serious bias influencing science.

People go along with the predominant way of thinking because that is what they are taught to think, because that is what their peers are reinforcing, because they want praise from peers and to be lauded as an expert in the field, as opposed to being dismissed as a quack, because they want that tenure position or to move to better schools. People want to be applauded - this is normal.It is much easier to just quiet that little bit of doubt in your head and be praised by your peers and invited to all the right symposiums, than it is to make yourself a pariah by asking questions. Nobody likes to be laughed at, and it takes a certain kind of courage to be laughed at and ostracized because you are only 90% certain that the prevailing view is correct and want to investigate the alternatives.

Bias is not always blatant or conscious. Most bias is unconscious, which is why it has to be strictly guarded against. History is replete with examples of medical procedures that were sacrosanct despite a few 'quacks' arguing against it, until a few decades later, the proof was so overwhelming that it had to be accepted. There are Nobel laureates who were finally recognized because they fought against the prevailing view for decades before being accepted (despite volumes of publications supporting the predominant view). There is a great example that is just sitting on the edge of my mind - I think from a guy who recently won the Nobel in either chemistry or physics in the last couple years because he doggedly stuck with a theory everyone laughed at him for, but sadly it is not coming.

Do not assuming that the predominant view is the unquestioned gospel only beset by corrupt agents operating against what they know to be the noble truth out of avarice, while those supporting the prevailing view as being paragons of virtue pure from any influence beyond divine truth.There are scam artists on both sides, there are honest people of good intentions on both sides.There are people of good intentions who knowingly exaggerate because they are passionate about the topic and want to get attention.And sometimes, even when the entire rest of the field says you are a quack, you are still right.

I was raised by lab mice, most of my friends are lab mice, I married a lab mouse (fortunately I somehow avoided becoming a lab mouse myself... unfortunately I turned into a datacenter imp instead).There is no shortage of high school level drama and favoritism in the sciences - it is not all pure academic objectivity.

Very well stated, IMHO.

To expand on the high school drama comparison, this is how I view a lot of scientists to be.

(This, also, pretty accurately describes my high school experience.) Scientists were the geeky kids in high school. Probably not very good at sports. Probably somewhat of a social outcast. They viewed the jocks as being nothing but brutish morons and valued intelligence above everything else.

But it was more than just seeing intelligence as being more important than strength and endurance. It was jealousy. They geeks secretly loathed the jocks, because they had something they couldn't get. They had popularity. They had attention. They got the girls. Now, the geek would never openly admit this. Hell, he might not have even realized it himself, but that jealousy was almost certainly there.

The geek goes to college. Gets his BA. Gets his masters. Goes into academic research. As much as the geek has been searching for knowledge for his entire life, he has been searching for something on a much baser level. He has been searching for acceptance. He wants to be vindicated in his intelligence over strength point of view. While maybe not knowing it, he has been selectively narrowing his group of peers to like-minded individuals.

A group of like-thinkers. Intellectuals. No brutish buffoons. No judging, dismissive cheerleaders. Ah, it's glorious. Finally, a place where he can thrive based purely on the merit of his intelligence. But there's a catch. He still needs to fit in with this new group of peers. Intelligence alone isn't enough.

He needs to think like they think. He needs to have the same interests they have. He needs to research the things they research.

This goes on for a few years. Finally he is a solid part of his peer group, but his work isn't over yet. Now he needs to defend his group from detractors. This group that has finally vindicated him and his life's work deserves to be defended. So he begins opposing viewpoints that oppose his peers. He may even go so far as to attack those who support viewpoints that oppose those of his peers. And so, a cycle is born. A cycle of only going with his peers and attacking everything that opposes it.

A feed back loop is created. The closer he gets to his group of peers, the more reason he has to defend them. The more he defends them, the closer he gets to them. This, all the while, making dissenting opinions harder and harder to make. Until someone brave enough to stand against them comes along, the status quo is maintained, even if they are wrong. Then, even if this brave dissenter is correct, it could takes decades of admonishment before his work is recreated, strengthened and proved.

Only the truly brave, or truly stupid, would even think to go against the popular opinion.

No, actually it isn't religious faith. Faith is blind, it is DEFINITIONALLY irrelevant to faith if there is contrary evidence or not. History is by contrast replete with examples of science as a whole being substantially correct. Just flip a light switch if you need evidence. Moreover you are making an 'excluded middle' type of argument. You are insisting that because all scientists are not completely free of bias and all prevailing views are not universally true that THIS VIEW must be false, or perhaps even that ALL OF SCIENCE must be false. This is simply elementary logical fallacy.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.I make a statement that people should entertain the idea that they may be mistaken, and the religious fervor comes out. Now I am accused of being a heretic who proclaims that all science is wrong!Please calm down and reread my post.

Do a quick google on fraudulent research published in academic journals - it will blow your mind.Free bit of advice to those who are academics here - don't try to rip off the work of an expert in the field and get it published under your own name. Earlier this year a hapless lab monkey had the misfortune of their fraudulent paper get sent for review to the guy whose work they were trying to rip off. Much hilarity ensued.

There are groups who are trying to get some grant money together to attempt to reproduce published work simply as a method of verifying the academic literature. Needless to say, they are finding it incredibly hard to get funding. Even if you manage to scrape together some funding, you will find it exceedingly hard to get published (when your public standing, not to mention your continued employment, rely upon getting published in high impact journals, devoting your time to checking other's work is not very appealing).

I would oblige with links to serious discussions in academic circles about the hazards of the current publishing regime (how sensational results get attention to the detriment of serious research, how there is a strong pressure to make statements far stronger than the data actually implies, and how easily groupthink can set in), but it is time for me to go.

Perhaps tomorrow I will give you a little insight into how there is a difference between how science works and how academic communities behave.

Yet still you cannot show us an example of a field which is entirely deluded and/or fraudulent. You can of course display individual instances of fraud, malfeasance, error, etc. It is indisputable that such exists. That isn't what you are asserting. You are asserting that THE ENTIRE SCIENCE OF CLIMATOLOGY is fundamentally wrong. That its core conclusions, and thus virtually the entire structure of the science in every one of its details is completely incorrect. This is a completely different thing from some researcher in Korea faking some cloning experiments (and you will notice, getting nailed for it rather promptly). Even when you have examples of 'groupthink' they are vastly minor and trivial compared to ALL of climatology being entirely false.

Again, show me where the movement exists to reproduce all of climate science and the evidence that it might be so flawed that the whole thing needs to be redone from scratch. See, the problem is that you are trying to take one type of situation and circumstance (in this case the medical research literature) and apply it to something VERY different. In medical research the issues have to do with specific small scale results, the efficacy of a drug for instance, which is not significantly related to the overall structure of medical science. Nobody is claiming that fraud has obscured the true function of the heart and that it doesn't actually pump blood. Yet this is exactly the sort of assertion that you are trying to justify when you apply this from the particular in the one field to the general in the other. This is a category error.

Despite what you think I have quite an open mind. I'm quite open to consider a whole range of propositions. It could be that climate sensitivity is 1.1C, that would (barely) be consistent with the observed facts if a LOT of very significant bias exists across the entire field. It is UNLIKELY (it falls at the very bottom edge of the 95% confidence interval by most measures). It is however possible. While it is unlikely that there is some completely novel feedback which will largely stabilize the climate at that modest amount of change (which we have nearly reached BTW) it is of course nearly impossible to completely exclude such a possibility. Under those conditions our concerns about AGW MIGHT be largely unwarranted (assuming that 1.1C has few negative effects, which has not been established). As you can see, even this highly optimistic possibility warrants action (probably just on other grounds besides AGW) and contains serious questions. In what way would you suggest we change our current course of action were this optimism to prove justified? Should we cease to do research on the climate? Should we simply throw up our hands and hope that ocean acidification and the other ecological hazards of fossil fuel consumption all turn out to be equally toothless?

Given that even my most broad-minded view of this situation leads me to believe that the current course of action is rather inadequate, and I have deep reservations about the optimistic end of the spectrum I find that there's really not a lot to discuss. This is especially true given that the pessimistic end of the spectrum is a truly horrifying set of possibilities with almost apocalyptic potentialities. Just BASIC PRUDENCE says that even were I to suspect you were right, that I would not change my opinion one iota as to the moral course of action. Humanity itself has rights which supervene over those of any individual or group. We do not have the right to take giant risks with its well-being simply for our own convenience or even in order to provide necessities for some of our own. We have great power now over the Earth, and while it may be practically a cliche to say that we also have great responsibility it is also true.

To expand on the high school drama comparison, this is how I view a lot of scientists to be.

* * *

It was jealousy.

* * *

I'm sure that you are just making all of this up. I do however believe that it is what you believe and as such I think it's pretty clear that the one with the chip on his shoulder is you.

Nope. That hypothetical situation only aligns with my personal experience for the high school part. In college I discovered the wonders of alcohol and not giving a shit.

Also, I started down the path of existentialism and realized that nothing anyone else thinks matters at all. All that matters it what goes on inside my own mind, and in there, I can be as awesome as I want to be.

The comments that scientists are somehow completely free of bias and all prevailing views are truth is nothing but religious faith. There is significant fraud in the sciences (and it is much easier to get published with BS in favor of the prevailing opinion than against - confirmation bias is a human trait) and not everyone who disagrees with the majority is openly mercenary 'i will sell BS for money' (shocking I know, but people have legitimate disagreements). Accusing anyone who does not spout the socially approved message as being a biased scam artist who is just publishing lies for money is appalling - this is why there is a problem in science. Were it to function as per the ideal, their submissions would be objectively evaluated with the same credulity as given to papers which support the reviewers position, but that is not what happens - what gets chosen for publication is what is more sensational and what agrees with the opinion of the reviewer (reproducing results is not sexy and does not tend to get grant funding or publication in high impact journals). That people are willing to instantly ascribe contradicting research to being fraud bought by evil interests just proves my point about serious bias influencing science.

People go along with the predominant way of thinking because that is what they are taught to think, because that is what their peers are reinforcing, because they want praise from peers and to be lauded as an expert in the field, as opposed to being dismissed as a quack, because they want that tenure position or to move to better schools. People want to be applauded - this is normal.It is much easier to just quiet that little bit of doubt in your head and be praised by your peers and invited to all the right symposiums, than it is to make yourself a pariah by asking questions. Nobody likes to be laughed at, and it takes a certain kind of courage to be laughed at and ostracized because you are only 90% certain that the prevailing view is correct and want to investigate the alternatives.

Bias is not always blatant or conscious. Most bias is unconscious, which is why it has to be strictly guarded against. History is replete with examples of medical procedures that were sacrosanct despite a few 'quacks' arguing against it, until a few decades later, the proof was so overwhelming that it had to be accepted. There are Nobel laureates who were finally recognized because they fought against the prevailing view for decades before being accepted (despite volumes of publications supporting the predominant view). There is a great example that is just sitting on the edge of my mind - I think from a guy who recently won the Nobel in either chemistry or physics in the last couple years because he doggedly stuck with a theory everyone laughed at him for, but sadly it is not coming.

Do not assuming that the predominant view is the unquestioned gospel only beset by corrupt agents operating against what they know to be the noble truth out of avarice, while those supporting the prevailing view as being paragons of virtue pure from any influence beyond divine truth.There are scam artists on both sides, there are honest people of good intentions on both sides.There are people of good intentions who knowingly exaggerate because they are passionate about the topic and want to get attention.And sometimes, even when the entire rest of the field says you are a quack, you are still right.

I was raised by lab mice, most of my friends are lab mice, I married a lab mouse (fortunately I somehow avoided becoming a lab mouse myself... unfortunately I turned into a datacenter imp instead).There is no shortage of high school level drama and favoritism in the sciences - it is not all pure academic objectivity.

Very well stated, IMHO.

To expand on the high school drama comparison, this is how I view a lot of scientists to be.

(This, also, pretty accurately describes my high school experience.) Scientists were the geeky kids in high school. Probably not very good at sports. Probably somewhat of a social outcast. They viewed the jocks as being nothing but brutish morons and valued intelligence above everything else.

But it was more than just seeing intelligence as being more important than strength and endurance. It was jealousy. They geeks secretly loathed the jocks, because they had something they couldn't get. They had popularity. They had attention. They got the girls. Now, the geek would never openly admit this. Hell, he might not have even realized it himself, but that jealousy was almost certainly there.

The geek goes to college. Gets his BA. Gets his masters. Goes into academic research. As much as the geek has been searching for knowledge for his entire life, he has been searching for something on a much baser level. He has been searching for acceptance. He wants to be vindicated in his intelligence over strength point of view. While maybe not knowing it, he has been selectively narrowing his group of peers to like-minded individuals.

A group of like-thinkers. Intellectuals. No brutish buffoons. No judging, dismissive cheerleaders. Ah, it's glorious. Finally, a place where he can thrive based purely on the merit of his intelligence. But there's a catch. He still needs to fit in with this new group of peers. Intelligence alone isn't enough.

He needs to think like they think. He needs to have the same interests they have. He needs to research the things they research.

This goes on for a few years. Finally he is a solid part of his peer group, but his work isn't over yet. Now he needs to defend his group from detractors. This group that has finally vindicated him and his life's work deserves to be defended. So he begins opposing viewpoints that oppose his peers. He may even go so far as to attack those who support viewpoints that oppose those of his peers. And so, a cycle is born. A cycle of only going with his peers and attacking everything that opposes it.

A feed back loop is created. The closer he gets to his group of peers, the more reason he has to defend them. The more he defends them, the closer he gets to them. This, all the while, making dissenting opinions harder and harder to make. Until someone brave enough to stand against them comes along, the status quo is maintained, even if they are wrong. Then, even if this brave dissenter is correct, it could takes decades of admonishment before his work is recreated, strengthened and proved.

Only the truly brave, or truly stupid, would even think to go against the popular opinion.

Well, that certainly removes any remaining doubt about whether you're confused but sincere, or just glib at making excuses for what (not so) "inadvertently" comes across as having an agenda.

Second, on the money in science point... Of course there is more money in other industries, but that's completely besides the point. Someone in climate in climate science wants to be in climate science, not another industry. That said, they are still going to want to make as much money as the can in climate science. Saying they could make more money by going into a different industry is... it's just f*cking stupid.

Alright. And what's the best way to make lots of money in climate science?

Deny deny deny. The Republicans will love you, as will the other deniers, and fund you. Heck, the industry, which admits that global warming exists, will fund you so that you fight against regulation. The people who deny that climate change exists have no trouble getting funding from these people, and they are much fewer in number. Its much easier to get paid by a much larger industry (energy) than science grants and the renewable energy industry, which don't have much political power comparitively.

Look, I'm sorry, but you're just completely wrong. The amount of money involved is fairly miniscule in either case, and it is a silly argument to begin with.

Your very premise is wrong. I am a biomedical engineer. I have worked for Hewlett Packard dealing with ink longevity and ink/material interaction, Energ2, a company that produces nanocarbon, and myself, as a game designer. This is not uncommon. My father was a physicist who worked for a bunch of technology companies. My mother is a microbiologist by training who ended up assistant director of ODOE, and who now works in housing.

You can't make up an entire field of study and hope that it survives on lies in science; it just doesn't work. You will be found out, and being the guy who brought down a massive theory is major cred in the scientific world. Moreover, scientists HATE people who lie to them or try to decieve them or give them false data; its just the mentality in the field. You ever notice what happens to people in science who get caught falsifying data? They lose their jobs and livelihoods. Scientists will eat you alive if you make mistakes, because then THEY can publish papers about how -you- messed up. And journals HATE to have to retract bad articles, and will likely never publish your stuff again if they end up having to do so.

Indeed, it is well worth remembering that almost all "scientists" who deny climate change -aren't- climatologists, just as all "scientists" who deny evolution aren't biologists. They are invariably trained in other fields, and have a very poor understanding of the subject matter - or in some cases, really are just mercenary (I can think of at least one scientist who denies evolution who has written a paper which touched on how certain biomolecules evolved). The people who deny that climate change exists don't even understand the basic science of the matter, and complain about things which have already been addressed - they are arguments directed at laypeople, not at other scientists, which is why those involved get so annoyed.

Quote:

And do realize that any statements for change here in the US won't even matter in the grand scheme of things, when you have China burning up more and more CO2 emissions ---> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_c ... -emissions even with us out of the picture, good luck getting us all on the same page and stopping this within the amount of time people are calling on that to happen.

You do realize that China has done more than anyone else - indeed, some might argue than EVERYONE else - to combat climate change, right?

China's one child policy cut hundreds of millions of people from ever existing. So they are understandably skeptical when the rest of the world asks them to sacrifice further, when they have done so much already.

Quote:

The other thing here is that, ultimately, most of the solutions are technology-based, and rely on products like PV cells, LED lighting, and so on. And if we choose to use those, China will develop the manufacturing capability to sell them to us. And, in the process, they'll develop the capacity to sell them to the whole rest of the planet, including themselves. And, if China is successful at doing all of this cheaply, you'll see global adoption of some of it. If China fails do do so, it probably won't be because nobody is buying it, it will be because some other country has found a way to make the tech even more cheaply.

Actually, this is incorrect.

Much as people tout manufacturing in China, it just isn't worth doing anymore. China is becoming too affluent, and the additional costs of production in China - co-ownership with someone who is Chinese, IP issues, and the production issues which are attached to a less educated workforce - make it better to produce here, in the US, with a highly automated system. Also, as oil becomes increasingly expensive, it is getting costlier to ship this stuff around the world.

Quote:

The comments that scientists are somehow completely free of bias and all prevailing views are truth is nothing but religious faith. There is significant fraud in the sciences (and it is much easier to get published with BS in favor of the prevailing opinion than against - confirmation bias is a human trait) and not everyone who disagrees with the majority is openly mercenary 'i will sell BS for money' (shocking I know, but people have legitimate disagreements).

Yes, the easiest way to commit fraud in science is to make a paper which says nothing of value and goes along with the consensus; however, actually committing fraud is pretty rare, mostly because it is safer to just publish a paper that says nothing new or interesting than it is to fabricate data. Not that people don't do so, but I've read a lot of scientific papers which said little of value, or which were too unreliable to build on - they were published, but they weren't -important-. And that is MUCH safer than risking everything on fraud.

The problem is that if your paper actually says something useful (and to get the big bucks in grants, and to get your name out there - and people like recognition - you want this), people actually read your paper and ask for your data, and then you are screwed. The lesser papers, fewer people read your papers, but no one cares about you, and that is not really good for you professionally.

Quote:

Accusing anyone who does not spout the socially approved message as being a biased scam artist who is just publishing lies for money is appalling - this is why there is a problem in science.

Except no, it isn't. How many papers critical of global warming get published in scientific journals? How many papers critical of evolution get published?

I think you'll find that the answer is 0. Why is this? The answer is simple: These papers -don't- pass peer review. It isn't just about being a scam artist - very often, it is about being deeply incompetent. A lot of these people either have no basis at all for their opposition, or their basis is deeply flawed, and everyone who works in the field knows it. And being an incompetent scientist who can't get anything published is VERY bad for your career.

So if there is no scientific opposition to it, where is the opposition coming from?

I think you can see the problem here. If these guys are not capable of hacking it in science, then who are they? And the answer is: some are in other fields of science, and others are just hucksters.

Quote:

Were it to function as per the ideal, their submissions would be objectively evaluated with the same credulity as given to papers which support the reviewers position, but that is not what happens - what gets chosen for publication is what is more sensational and what agrees with the opinion of the reviewer (reproducing results is not sexy and does not tend to get grant funding or publication in high impact journals). That people are willing to instantly ascribe contradicting research to being fraud bought by evil interests just proves my point about serious bias influencing science.

Here's what you have to understand - and what YOU don't understand: When you say "global warming is fake", what exactly are you saying? How do you prove that? What a paper really does when it attacks an existing theory is one of a few things:

1) Attacks the data being used by other studies.2) Looks for a methodological flaw in the analysis of the data.3) Looks for evidence that the relationship is correlation, not causation.4) Presents another hypothesis to explain the data.

Do you have any conception about how difficult that is to do, when thousands of people have been picking at the data for decades? It is VERY difficult to do, because if these flaws existed, other people are very likely to have already found them. There -are- exceptions - for instance, look at the nutritionists, who have their theories overturned on a fairly regular basis - but in a field like climatology, that is less likely as they have much better computer models, whereas living organisms cannot be modelled in this way and so all studies must be done on living things, and often take a decade or more to prove that whatever you're trying to study is true or false, ESPECIALLY when it comes to humans.

So let's look at the above, and consider how hard these things are to attack on climate change.

1) This is the easiest route. This data by its very nature has to be gathered remotely - you've got satellites and you've got ground stations, plus weather balloons, ship logs, and various paleorecords, such as tree rings, ice cores, mineralization, ect. And you'll find that people fight over this data all the time, the main reason being that all of these methods have their own limitations. Live data is the best, and satellite data is in many ways the VERY best (due to its lack of localization), but satellite data is limited in certain respects. Ground stations are vulnerable to being in poor locales, or having the environment around them change (and indeed, there was a big fight for a while over whether increasing urbanization was throwing off the climate station data; in the end, they determined that climate change was detectable even in those stations which were not affected by urban growth, so it wasn't just caused by this. Again, an example of scientists publishing about other scientists' mistakes and how they can throw things off... or not. As it turns out, it is a big data set). Ships obviously are only measuring in large bodies of water. Weather balloons are only sporadically deployed. Tree rings can be thrown off by things that affect plant growth that are not temperature related. Mineralization can be achieved in multiple ways, or may not correlate super closely with temperature conditions. Ice cores only show conditions in frozen areas.

The problem with this line of attack is correlation between data sets - namely, various methods give similar results. This is bad news for any attacker, as while you might attack some of the data, there is a LOT more that agrees with it - so you have to attack ALL of the data, and a lot of this is basically unassailable at this point because it has been picked over to the point where any errors in it are very, very likely to have been detected. Or to put it bluntly - it is possible that any one dataset is flawed. It is very unlikely that ALL the datasets are flawed in the same direction, which leads to...

2) Proving that the data is not being interpreted properly. This is mostly impossible with the modern data, and most of the historical data is mapped to the modern data, or mapped to things which are mapped to modern data. Its pretty hard to say that the average global temperature hasn't gone up, and if you map the rise to historical trends, you see that the modern rise was very rapid comapred to historical fluctuations which lasted more than a couple years, and is in the wrong direction - in other words, a major volcano going off may depress global temperatures for a year or two, but we just don't see sudden sustained upswings like we've seen of late. It is possible to argue that the paleodata doesn't correlate with modern temperature variations (though in some cases, it is reasonably well proven that they do correlate), but then, on what basis do you argue that this upswing is normal if you claim that all the paleodata is bad? This leads to...

3) Correlation is not causation. This is probably the biggest mistake people make in science, because it is really impossible to absolutely prove causation, and in the case of things that we cannot do direct experiments with (human beings, the entire planet, galaxies) you are far more prone to this sort of mistake. People always have to be on the lookout for this sort of mistake, and that is dangerous.

However, while climate science is theoretically very vulnerable to this, in actuality this is less of an issue than one might think. The reason is a fewfold, but the big one is that the Earth is an object floating around in space; almost all external energy applied to the system is applied by the Sun, and the Sun's output is actually fairly easy to observe, and we have seen no evidence that the Sun's output is increasing while the Earth's temperature is increasing. In other words, whatever is driving climate change can't be the Sun. And that is a big problem, because the other two drivers are the inside of the Earth and the biosphere (which includes us). There haven't been unusual amounts of venting from the inside of the Earth to the atmosphere independent of humans, and the main driver of the biosphere has been humans for quite some time now. And indeed, humans have been adding large amounts of carbon dioxide - as well as some other gasses - to the atmosphere, and we have proven that other gasses that we have added, even in low concentrations, can have a large impact on it - see the ozone hole.

Moreover, we know that carbon dioxide and several other greenhouse gasses that we emit DO trap heat. They are called greenhouse gasses for a reason - we have actually proven that higher concentrations of them will result in greater trapped heat via experiments involving said gasses. You can do these experiments directly, which means that we can know that, in fact, in reality these gasses do have this effect.

So when we see that humans are putting out increasingly large amounts of CO2, and that the temperature is rising, the fact that those two things are correlated is very problematic is we already know that added CO2 (and other gasses) DO increase the effects of the greenhouse effect. Or in other words, causation is pretty strong here.

4) This relates to 3 but is sort of the inverse. Basically, "the Sun is getting brighter" would fall into this category. This is pretty dead ground mostly because the other two major drivers - the Earth and the Sun - have kind of been ruled out. You'd have to come up with something else that is causing the temperature to increase. And people have looked.

Quote:

People go along with the predominant way of thinking because that is what they are taught to think, because that is what their peers are reinforcing, because they want praise from peers and to be lauded as an expert in the field, as opposed to being dismissed as a quack, because they want that tenure position or to move to better schools. People want to be applauded - this is normal.

Except... not, actually. And if you had been educated at a good school, you'd know this. Or paid attention in science class.

My teachers taught me science. When we talked about this stuff, we learned about how it was shown to be true. We did experiments ourselves, in some cases - especially in physics, but also in biology and chemistry. You can't learn science without a bit of the history of science, because the history of how we got to here today is what defines what we know and how certain we are about it.

You don't get lauded as an expert in the field by agreeing with anyone, and anyone who claims that has no understanding of science. No one -cares- about you if you always agree. What they care about is if you improve the understanding, which means by definition that you better other people and produce better data, better knowledge.

To be reknowned in the world of science, you must excel, because your performance is based on how well read your papers are, and how awesome your data is. A good set of data can produce dozens of papers and years of study not only for yourself but for everyone else involved. A clever experiment can provide a great deal of insight into the function of things.

To be mediocre is not to be lauded, and anyone who has ever dealt with science can tell you that.

Your words are fantasy. The fantasies of those who cannot hack it. The fantasies of those who make up excuses for why they fail, why the world is corrupt, why they are right and everyone else is wrong.

And it is obvious to all who see your words who know, that they know.

Quote:

And sometimes, even when the entire rest of the field says you are a quack, you are still right.

People love this idea. It is so romantic!

It is also almost always wrong now.

What was the last time this happened?

I can answer that question for you: better than a half century ago. More or less, this only happened in fields which were already laden with quacks. If you're in a hard science, this just isn't going to happen now. Ever.

There is a difference between people not liking what you have to say, and calling you a quack. When real scientists call you a quack, as a profession, then there is a 100% chance that you are, in fact, a quack. The end.

There is a fundamental difference between being unpopular and being a quack.

Quote:

You, Alhazred, and Titanium Dragon have all made comments to the effect that you believe that the current prevailing view must, buy the very nature of science, be free of bias, or that the prevailing thought must be unimpeachable.

There are always biased people. But a theory, that is something else. That is the work of thousands of people, working together. For you to overthrow a theory, it has to be pretty strong. And theories that are overthrown have certain features which are absent here.

The big problem with any argument about climate change is this: it is an empirical, testable fact that increasing CO2 concentration increases the amount of heat trapped in an atmosphere. Period. Other greenhouse gasses, same story - this is easy to test. So when an increase in humans putting CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere correlates - strongly! - with an increase in global temperatures, and the other major drivers - volcanic activity and solar activity - are NOT correlating with it, that ALONE is incredibly strong evidence. And when you look at MULTIPLE different ways of measuring the temperature of the atmosphere of the Earth - multiple different temperature records, from ships, from weather stations, from satellites - and they all point the same direction, that tells us that this is not coincidental, it is not a mistake in our methods for measuring temperature. That tells us that the world really -is- getting warmer.

You have to argue that somehow, the pollutants we put out DID NOT cause this increase in the atmosphere, -even though- we know that these gasses do have exactly this effect. And that is a bloody hard thing to do. You have to find another driver for it, and there is no other driver. You have to say that the temperature readings are wrong, but EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, IN THE SAME DIRECTION? You're going to need to find a driver, or you're going to need for the temperature data to reverse direction - and it is showing no sign of doing so.

I have done the research into this, something you clearly have not done. I understand this stuff. Its not taking people at their word - I actually have read papers, looked at data. This isn't rocket science - while the models are very complicated computer programs,

Quote:

For every maverick who gains rewards for proving beyond doubt that they were right, there are scores who are sidelined and never given a chance to be heard. When this happens in chemistry it is appalling enough, but at least they have repeatable experiments - trying to go against prevailing wisdom in an unverifiable unreproducible field is a Sisyphean task, especially when there is such a strong political wind. Getting tenure is hard enough - you really don't want to have a politically unpopular view on record.

The problem is that you have a very romantic view of mavericks.

Here's the truth - most mavericks are idiots. Welcome to reality. The reason that they don't get anywhere isn't because they got sidelined - its because they were WRONG. Again, correlation, not causation - they got sidelined -because- they were wrong.

Quote:

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.I make a statement that people should entertain the idea that they may be mistaken, and the religious fervor comes out. Now I am accused of being a heretic who proclaims that all science is wrong!Please calm down and reread my post.

The problem is that you are not entertaining the idea that YOU are mistaken. You are what is known as a faux-skeptic - someone who does not understand skepticism.

Quote:

Do a quick google on fraudulent research published in academic journals - it will blow your mind.

No. It won't. Because I know about it. The problem is, you don't. You have no sense of scale.

Quote:

There are groups who are trying to get some grant money together to attempt to reproduce published work simply as a method of verifying the academic literature. Needless to say, they are finding it incredibly hard to get funding. Even if you manage to scrape together some funding, you will find it exceedingly hard to get published (when your public standing, not to mention your continued employment, rely upon getting published in high impact journals, devoting your time to checking other's work is not very appealing).

Are you kidding me?

Okay, seriously: this happens -all the time-. People do verification work constantly. People are much less likely to replicate unimportant experiments than important ones, but it happens quite often - especially if the experiment has further relevance or can be built upon.

In fact, a lot of bickering in many communities is over data sets and the interpretation thereof.

It really depends on the experiment on how hard it is to get funding for repeating it.

Quote:

I would oblige with links to serious discussions in academic circles about the hazards of the current publishing regime (how sensational results get attention to the detriment of serious research, how there is a strong pressure to make statements far stronger than the data actually implies, and how easily groupthink can set in), but it is time for me to go.

Perhaps tomorrow I will give you a little insight into how there is a difference between how science works and how academic communities behave.

You assume that any of this is news to us.

Newsflash: it isn't. Hell, one of the first papers we read in our molecular virology class was a paper about publication bias, and estimating what percentage of scientific papers are the result of publication bias. We of course, then made jokes about how this paper was probably the result of publication bias, as all the people who didn't find publication bias didn't publish.

Yes, it is an ongoing battle in the scientific community to get more negative results published, because they are underreported and make it harder to use confidence intervals because you don't know if someone else has run the same experiment and chose not to publish because they found nothing.

Sensational results are, however, something of a horse of a different color, and indeed it makes me think you aren't really involved in it as deeply as you believe you are, or understand it as well as you think you do. I can tell you this: sensationalism is a problem, but it is less of a problem in science and more of a problem in the public sphere, where people are eager to talk to the press before their research has been vetted. People don't like that. A lot of science is boring to normal people. That's just the way it is. Its like when the geologists working for NASA find rocks on Mars - yes, it is very exciting to them, but to anyone who doesn't understand what those rocks MEAN, or why they are interesting, it just seems ridiculous.

Some scientists are jealous about that, but it is neither here nor there, and it isn't really bad for science itself, as it doesn't really impact it.

I think you need to revisit "Incompetent and Unaware of it". The Dunning-Kruger effect is a wonderful thing. You might want to try applying it to yourself..

Well, that certainly removes any remaining doubt about whether you're confused but sincere, or just glib at making excuses for what (not so) "inadvertently" comes across as having an agenda.

What agenda do you see me pushing?

That was a hypothetical anecdote about how the scientific community may be. I think there's a good chance that's how it largely works out, but I could be completely wrong. I'm not the field. I can gather no evidence either for or against it.

Pluckedwiki, however, knows several people in the field. Going by what he says, I'd say there is some credence to my anecdote.

Are you in the field? Do you have evidence to refute me? If so, say it. If not, don't try to come up with witty retorts that just boil down to "I don't agree with you." They aren't witty. They're passive aggressive.

No, actually it isn't religious faith. Faith is blind, it is DEFINITIONALLY irrelevant to faith if there is contrary evidence or not. History is by contrast replete with examples of science as a whole being substantially correct. Just flip a light switch if you need evidence. Moreover you are making an 'excluded middle' type of argument. You are insisting that because all scientists are not completely free of bias and all prevailing views are not universally true that THIS VIEW must be false, or perhaps even that ALL OF SCIENCE must be false. This is simply elementary logical fallacy.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.I make a statement that people should entertain the idea that they may be mistaken, and the religious fervor comes out. Now I am accused of being a heretic who proclaims that all science is wrong!Please calm down and reread my post.

Do a quick google on fraudulent research published in academic journals - it will blow your mind.Free bit of advice to those who are academics here - don't try to rip off the work of an expert in the field and get it published under your own name. Earlier this year a hapless lab monkey had the misfortune of their fraudulent paper get sent for review to the guy whose work they were trying to rip off. Much hilarity ensued.

There are groups who are trying to get some grant money together to attempt to reproduce published work simply as a method of verifying the academic literature. Needless to say, they are finding it incredibly hard to get funding. Even if you manage to scrape together some funding, you will find it exceedingly hard to get published (when your public standing, not to mention your continued employment, rely upon getting published in high impact journals, devoting your time to checking other's work is not very appealing).

You mean like Muller? The B.E.S.T. project?

Despite granting bodies dislike of merely repeating someone else's work (while verification/replication is essential; slavish copying is usually a waste of scarce resources) Muller managed to garner the resources to re-analyze the entire data record following a substantially different methodology (designed to address various alleged "shortcomings" that the "skeptiks" insisted rendered the accepted body of climate change research invalid). The result -- B.E.S.T. provided confirmation of the mainstream position, despite seeking to prove its inadequacy. Go figure.

Quote:

I would oblige with links to serious discussions in academic circles about the hazards of the current publishing regime (how sensational results get attention to the detriment of serious research, how there is a strong pressure to make statements far stronger than the data actually implies, and how easily groupthink can set in), but it is time for me to go.

You appear to be rather confused about the difference between science research publication and the popular mass media

Quote:

Perhaps tomorrow I will give you a little insight into how there is a difference between how science works and how academic communities behave.

To expand on the high school drama comparison, this is how I view a lot of scientists to be.

* * *

It was jealousy.

* * *

I'm sure that you are just making all of this up. I do however believe that it is what you believe and as such I think it's pretty clear that the one with the chip on his shoulder is you.

Nope. That hypothetical situation only aligns with my personal experience for the high school part. In college I discovered the wonders of alcohol and not giving a shit.

Also, I started down the path of existentialism and realized that nothing anyone else thinks matters at all. All that matters it what goes on inside my own mind, and in there, I can be as awesome as I want to be.

But clearly you learned nothing of logic or science as all you have to offer are conspiracy theories riddled with logical fallacies. If you want to convince people here you should present evidence that things are the way you say they are and not, say, the fevered ramblings of a syphilitic brain.

Well, that certainly removes any remaining doubt about whether you're confused but sincere, or just glib at making excuses for what (not so) "inadvertently" comes across as having an agenda.

What agenda do you see me pushing?

That was a hypothetical anecdote about how the scientific community may be. I think there's a good chance that's how it largely works out, but I could be completely wrong. I'm not the field. I can gather no evidence either for or against it.

Logical Fallacy: Begging the QuestionIf you want to convince people of you conspiracy theory maybe you should present evidence instead of just spouting logical fallacies.

Sextron wrote:

Pluckedwiki, however, knows several people in the field. Going by what he says, I'd say there is some credence to my anecdote.

Are you in the field? Do you have evidence to refute me? If so, say it. If not, don't try to come up with witty retorts that just boil down to "I don't agree with you." They aren't witty. They're passive aggressive.

Since you're the one proposing a conspiracy theory maybe you should put forth evidence that you're not completely full of shit. You know, back up your claims with evidence like scientists do. If climate scientists are just making up AGW, how does the theory differ from observations? What alternate hypothesis can be used to explain observations that doesn't violate basic physics? How does your conspiracy theory not fly in the face of the fact that the path to fame and fortune in science comes from overturning existing theory with a new better one? Ever hear of Einstein?

So far all you've done is demonstrate Abe Lincoln's adage of "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

To expand on the high school drama comparison, this is how I view a lot of scientists to be.

* * *

It was jealousy.

* * *

I'm sure that you are just making all of this up. I do however believe that it is what you believe and as such I think it's pretty clear that the one with the chip on his shoulder is you.

Nope. That hypothetical situation only aligns with my personal experience for the high school part. In college I discovered the wonders of alcohol and not giving a shit.

Also, I started down the path of existentialism and realized that nothing anyone else thinks matters at all. All that matters it what goes on inside my own mind, and in there, I can be as awesome as I want to be.

But clearly you learned nothing of logic or science as all you have to offer are conspiracy theories riddled with logical fallacies. If you want to convince people here you should present evidence that things are the way you say they are and not, say, the fevered ramblings of a syphilitic brain.

I know much of logic and science. Yes, my arguments here might be full of logical fallacies, but I'm not trying to win a debate. Last time I checked, these were user comments on a news article on a website, not a peer reviewed paper. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just putting forth ideas for others to read and think on.

Be open minded. Don't disregard them straight off. Entertain the "fevered ramblings" of my "syphilitic brain". Try to make sense of it. Warp your own logic to great extents, if you must, to wrap your head around a potentially absurd idea.

Once you have done that, break it down. Bring it back into the strict realm of your own logic. Dissect it. Then either affirm or deny the ideas.

Well, that certainly removes any remaining doubt about whether you're confused but sincere, or just glib at making excuses for what (not so) "inadvertently" comes across as having an agenda.

What agenda do you see me pushing?

That was a hypothetical anecdote about how the scientific community may be. I think there's a good chance that's how it largely works out, but I could be completely wrong. I'm not the field. I can gather no evidence either for or against it.

Logical Fallacy: Begging the QuestionIf you want to convince people of you conspiracy theory maybe you should present evidence instead of just spouting logical fallacies.

Sextron wrote:

Pluckedwiki, however, knows several people in the field. Going by what he says, I'd say there is some credence to my anecdote.

Are you in the field? Do you have evidence to refute me? If so, say it. If not, don't try to come up with witty retorts that just boil down to "I don't agree with you." They aren't witty. They're passive aggressive.

Since you're the one proposing a conspiracy theory maybe you should put forth evidence that you're not completely full of shit. You know, back up your claims with evidence like scientists do. If climate scientists are just making up AGW, how does the theory differ from observations? What alternate hypothesis can be used to explain observations that doesn't violate basic physics? How does your conspiracy theory not fly in the face of the fact that the path to fame and fortune in science comes from overturning existing theory with a new better one? Ever hear of Einstein?

So far all you've done is demonstrate Abe Lincoln's adage of "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

I've been trying to censor myself, but...

HOLY FUCKING SHIT, PEOPLE, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT I DON'T DENY GLOBAL WARMING!? JFC, YOU ALL SIT THERE AND SPEW LOGICAL FALLACIES AT ME, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T APPLY.

Begging the question: Example - Aspirin users are at risk of becoming dependent on the drug, because aspirin is an addictive substance.

What I said, was that I knew what I was saying was completely hypothetical. I know what I was saying what I was anecdotal. I knew it was purely my own opinion. I knew I had no evidence to back that opinion up, and knew that I didn't have the means to gather the evidence. "Begging the question" in no way relates to anything in any of those statements.

Argument from authority: First of all, this argument isn't inherently fallacious. It being fallacious depends on:

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject. There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

The first point cannot be either PROVEN or DISPROVEN by ANYONE HERE. We are all random, anonymous users on a comment board. Unless someone wants to dox themselves, nothing anyone says about themselves can be proven.

For the second point, we simply don't have enough experts to form a concensus either for or against this arguement. So far we have one person who claims to be in the field that supports it, and one person who claims to be in the field that denies it. So, there might be a fallacy in my argument from authority, or there might not be.

The next time you link to articles explaining logical fallacies, you might want to actually read them yourself.

Or, how's this for a logical fallacy:

Straw man: an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Hmm, seems like most of you are guilty of that one, because, once again, I NEVER SAID I DENIED GLOBAL WARMING.

But clearly you learned nothing of logic or science as all you have to offer are conspiracy theories riddled with logical fallacies. If you want to convince people here you should present evidence that things are the way you say they are and not, say, the fevered ramblings of a syphilitic brain.

I know much of logic and science. Yes, my arguments here might be full of logical fallacies, but I'm not trying to win a debate. Last time I checked, these were user comments on a news article on a website, not a peer reviewed paper. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just putting forth ideas for others to read and think on.

Be open minded. Don't disregard them straight off. Entertain the "fevered ramblings" of my "syphilitic brain". Try to make sense of it. Warp your own logic to great extents, if you must, to wrap your head around a potentially absurd idea.

Once you have done that, break it down. Bring it back into the strict realm of your own logic. Dissect it. Then either affirm or deny the ideas.

In case you were not aware this is a forum for discussing science. So why are you here? If it's just to troll you should be aware that on this site trolls get bans. If you're here to say things that are blatantly untrue and nonsensical don't be surprised by down votes and people thinking you're an ass.

Pointing out the fallacies in your own logic while you incorrectly try to label my arguments as fallacious, isn't anti-science.

Nothing I have said is anti-science. Period. For you to see them as anti-science, I must assume you are somehow threatened by my statements, have no logical counter-arguments to them, and must resort to straw man tactics to distract from the fact that you have no counter-arguments.

If I'm wrong in my assumption, you may want to stop using so many straw man arguments.

But clearly you learned nothing of logic or science as all you have to offer are conspiracy theories riddled with logical fallacies. If you want to convince people here you should present evidence that things are the way you say they are and not, say, the fevered ramblings of a syphilitic brain.

I know much of logic and science. Yes, my arguments here might be full of logical fallacies, but I'm not trying to win a debate. Last time I checked, these were user comments on a news article on a website, not a peer reviewed paper. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just putting forth ideas for others to read and think on.

Be open minded. Don't disregard them straight off. Entertain the "fevered ramblings" of my "syphilitic brain". Try to make sense of it. Warp your own logic to great extents, if you must, to wrap your head around a potentially absurd idea.

Once you have done that, break it down. Bring it back into the strict realm of your own logic. Dissect it. Then either affirm or deny the ideas.

In case you were not aware this is a forum for discussing science. So why are you here? If it's just to troll you should be aware that on this site trolls get bans. If you're here to say things that are blatantly untrue and nonsensical don't be surprised by down votes and people thinking you're an ass.

You should also be aware that personal attacks are severely frowned upon in this forum. I don't know about you, but alluding to me being a fool and having a fevered syphilitic brain seem like pretty personal attacks to me.

And no, I'm not trolling. My intentions were very clearly stated in my post that you quoted. And ars technica covers much more than just science. It coves technology. It covers patent law. It covers gaming.

I would think that at least one of those groups would cover people who can have an open mind, not take things too seriously, and partake in civilized discussion with people who have different opinions than their own, but it seems I would be wrong.

Yes, some things I've said probably wouldn't pass muster for being civilized discussion, but those things were only said in response to either personal attacks, or completely fallacious arguments.

Well, that certainly removes any remaining doubt about whether you're confused but sincere, or just glib at making excuses for what (not so) "inadvertently" comes across as having an agenda.

What agenda do you see me pushing?

That was a hypothetical anecdote about how the scientific community may be. I think there's a good chance that's how it largely works out, but I could be completely wrong. I'm not the field. I can gather no evidence either for or against it.

Logical Fallacy: Begging the QuestionIf you want to convince people of you conspiracy theory maybe you should present evidence instead of just spouting logical fallacies.

Sextron wrote:

Begging the question: Example - Aspirin users are at risk of becoming dependent on the drug, because aspirin is an addictive substance.

What I said, was that I knew what I was saying was completely hypothetical. I know what I was saying what I was anecdotal. I knew it was purely my own opinion. I knew I had no evidence to back that opinion up, and knew that I didn't have the means to gather the evidence. "Begging the question" in no way relates to anything in any of those statements.

Argument from authority: First of all, this argument isn't inherently fallacious. It being fallacious depends on:

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject. There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

The first point cannot be either PROVEN or DISPROVEN by ANYONE HERE. We are all random, anonymous users on a comment board. Unless someone wants to dox themselves, nothing anyone says about themselves can be proven.

For the second point, we simply don't have enough experts to form a concensus either for or against this arguement. So far we have one person who claims to be in the field that supports it, and one person who claims to be in the field that denies it. So, there might be a fallacy in my argument from authority, or there might not be.

The next time you link to articles explaining logical fallacies, you might want to actually read them yourself.

And you might want to try to understand what wikipedia is explaining before posting, you know instead of copying random bits and pretending they agree with you.

Begging the question is: “demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion. ” your “hypothetical question” about your conspiracy assumes the conclusion that there is a conspiracy because there has to be one because there is consensus among experts.

As for Appeal to Authority, you should have read the whole entry: “Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism ” So if you fail at least one of the tests, it's fallacious, and since this is the interwebs you basically always fail the first one.

And I have a new logical fallacy for you: Fallacy of Many Questions, aka loaded questions. It's where you dress up accusations in the form of questions. Like your hypothetical questions about scientists.

Pointing out the fallacies in your own logic while you incorrectly try to label my arguments as fallacious, isn't anti-science.

Nothing I have said is anti-science. Period. For you to see them as anti-science, I must assume you are somehow threatened by my statements, have no logical counter-arguments to them, and must resort to straw man tactics to distract from the fact that you have no counter-arguments.

If I'm wrong in my assumption, you may want to stop using so many straw man arguments.

Saying you can't trust the scientific literature because there might be a conspiracy, which you provide no evidence for, is.

And you might want to try to understand what wikipedia is explaining before posting, you know instead of copying random bits and pretending they agree with you.

Begging the question is: “demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion. ” your “hypothetical question” about your conspiracy assumes the conclusion that there is a conspiracy because there has to be one because there is consensus among experts.

As for Appeal to Authority, you should have read the whole entry: “Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism ” So if you fail at least one of the tests, it's fallacious, and since this is the interwebs you basically always fail the first one.

And I have a new logical fallacy for you: Fallacy of Many Questions, aka loaded questions. It's where you dress up accusations in the form of questions. Like your hypothetical questions about scientists.

Once again, the begging the question fallacy does not at all apply at all to what you quoted. I stated a very open-ended opinion about something. I quite clearly stated that I wasn't making a conclusion. You also may want to double-check the definition of conspiracy, because nothing I have said pertains to a conspiracy. By stating that the actors are independent, I have explicitly stated that I DON"T think there is a conspiracy.

con·spir·a·cy[kuh n-spir-uh-see]noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.1. the act of conspiring.2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

The only one of those that even might apply is number 5, but I'd say that would be reaching pretty hard.

As for the appeal to authority: I already stated that that there is not enough evidence to either prove or disprove a fallacy. Yes, I cannot prove that my statement IS NOT fallacious, but you can't prove that it IS, either.

Anyway, you have made it quite clear that you are very lacking in reading comprehension skills. I'm done replying to you. You may have the last word and call me crazy to your unfettered whim.

... Anyway, you have made it quite clear that you are very lacking in reading comprehension skills.

{snerk}

You clearly think everybody here is not only clueless, but both stupid and and gullible.

Quote:

I'm done replying to you. You may have the last word and call me crazy to your unfettered whim.

Promise? Cross your heart and hope to die?Didn't think so.

First, I said I wouldn't reply to ManWithHat, so you are completely fair game.

Second, I've stated many times that I'm not trying to make strictly logical arguments. I'm just saying things for the sake of saying them, hoping that people will read them, and hoping that it might make them think differently for a very small moment of time.

I only bring up logical fallacies to point out that, many times, when people say my arguments are fallacious, they are incorrectly attributing fallacies to what I have said, while making fallacious arguments themselves.

And quite the contrary, I think most people here are probably rather intelligent. They aren't, however, very open minded. They seem to be very defensive against any viewpoint that differs from their own.